Declaration of Charges

[rogerg]

No, legal blocking is not something that seems good either. How do we interpret 'legally contact' (haven't got the book for the exact phrase) if in declaring two charges a contact cannot occur?

Do the rules not suggest that to declare charges they must all both independently and collectively make legal contact? If you have to be able to show that a charge will legally contact before it is a valid declaration, I would suggest that this implies you cannot declare mutually incompatible charges.

[sagji]

There is however no requirement to specify the direction of a charge when it is declared.

Charge direction only kicks in when you actually move the charge or when the target (or at least one target) of the evades.

This is incorrect - the path of the charge must be determined before this, but the rules don't say when but it has to be before determining interception.

Another question we've come to is: Can you deliberately block of one of your own declared charges?
situation as follows:

The quoted example doesn't work - the LH doesn't evade untill you start resolving one of the charges at which point you are committed to which BG is charging.

Code: Select all

DDA
DDA
DDA
  A
      FFFF

 BBBCCC
 BBBCCC

B and C declare a charge on A.
F is a friendly BG constraining C's Path - C needs to drop a file and wheel so that its front left corner enters D's interception range. D is an enemy BG outside B's charge range, but within its step forward range. Which ever charge goes in first will block the other's path and cancel the charge.

This results in 2 potential exploits:
B really doesn't want to fight D move C first - D can't intercept at this time as it is a target of B's charge. After C has moved B's charge is cancelled and D can intercept but it is too late to intercept C as it has already moved.

C is shock troups that you don't want to burst through F - Order it to charge normally but move B first. C's charge is then cancelled but as it is after the check for charging without orders so there is no risk of it bursting through F.

I think it makes sense that a general should be able to give charge orders to a blocked unit knowing that he has given orders to the unit in front to charge and this charge will get it out of the way.
It makes no sense that a general can give charge orders to a unit knowing that another unit's charge will block it, and that by giving the order this will prevent the unit charging without orders and bursting through friends.
I think the issue is altered by players' working that the path of the charge is only decided at the point when you move the BG - or its target evades - but the rules sometimes requires that the path be known before that and I think in practice the path of the target was decided by the commander when he gave the order (or at least the targets).

Ultimately both methods give issues, but I suspect that all charges are declared in isolation is slightly worse.

[lawrenceg]

Is it reasonable that you can deliberately block your own troops during a charge, but you can't deliberately unblock them?

No more unreasonable than some other features of FOG.

If you write some reasonable rules that cover all the possible interference situations and put them in the errata or FAQ then I'll happily play them.

I suggest that:

You can only declare a charge if you could do it without any other BG moving.

and

If you cannot do your charge, it is cancelled.

would be the simplest rules and reasonable enough to be acceptable.

[nikgaukroger]

I agree - its simple and playable that way.

[rbodleyscott]

I also agree.

[sagji]

I agree - its simple and playable that way.

It is also simple and playable to say that the blocking BG is destroyed - doesn't make it a good rule.

Does it make sence that you can prevent a BG of lancers from charging without orders and thus bursting through friends by giving it orders to charge knowing another BG will block the charge, Or that you can prevent an enemy BG from intercepting a charge by declaring another charge knowing it will be blocked by the first charge?
Do you think a general could give a set of orders.
"The cavalry will charge the LH, if the LH evade and block the knights then the halbardiers will charge the crossbowmen, otherwise the cataphracts will."
I think it is more than is practical in a single impact phase.

I think part of the problem is that the rules effective give a view of a charge as the general saying "charge somebody, anybody, I don't care who" with each BG making a charge in sequence and the BG commander deciding the who when it is his turn to charge. Whereas I think it should be the general saying "charge those crossbowmen over there" with the charges happening more or less simultaneously - but being resolved one at a time for practicallity.

Can anyone come up with a historical instance of 2 BGs being given mutually imcompatable orders?

[jre]

It fits with FoG philosophy that there is a junior commander with some initiative with each BG, rather than an all-seeing all-commanding general making all decisions.

It is not so easy to totally block a charge, so a miscalculation and you may end up charging in column. As well, the ploy mentioned involves charging with a sacrificial BG to avoid a shock troop from charging the target. FoG is quite strong on sacrificial tactics, if you are willing to pay the attrition cost.

My own proposal to avoid this would be to expand the "no wheel if there are less base contacts" rule to count other BGs. So if your wheel will block another BG, you better ensure a broad contact rather than a sweep from one side to the other.

José

[lawrenceg]

I agree - its simple and playable that way.

It is also simple and playable to say that the blocking BG is destroyed - doesn't make it a good rule.

Does it make sence that you can prevent a BG of lancers from charging without orders and thus bursting through friends by giving it orders to charge knowing another BG will block the charge,

IMO it makes sense that the order "X is charging Y so I don't want you to charge and get in the way" is more likely to succeed than "Don't charge."

Under the postulated rule it makes no difference whether you give it orders to charge or not - if it is blocked, the charge is cancelled. In fact, if it would have to burst through friends, you would not be allowed to declare the charge. In any case, it is already in the rules that troops charging without orders do not burst through troops already in combat. The new rule is no different from the existing rules for this scenario

It looks as though you have simply concocted a false argument intended to make the rule look absurd when you know very well it is not, but I shall assume that you misunderstood what is proposed.

Or that you can prevent an enemy BG from intercepting a charge by declaring another charge knowing it will be blocked by the first charge?

I think it is a fairly standard strategem: causing an opponent to adopt a defensive, rather than offensive, posture by appearing to be more aggressive than you actually intend to be.

Do you think a general could give a set of orders.
"The cavalry will charge the LH, if the LH evade and block the knights then the halbardiers will charge the crossbowmen, otherwise the cataphracts will."
I think it is more than is practical in a single impact phase.

No doubt here that you have knowingly concocted a false argument intended to make the rule look absurd.

I think part of the problem is that the rules effective give a view of a charge as the general saying "charge somebody, anybody, I don't care who" with each BG making a charge in sequence and the BG commander deciding the who when it is his turn to charge. Whereas I think it should be the general saying "charge those crossbowmen over there" with the charges happening more or less simultaneously - but being resolved one at a time for practicallity.

Practicality is the key word. How would you handle the situation of mutual incompatibility between a declared charge and a charge without orders?



What about the case of two incompatible charges without orders?


The proposed rules are practical and can be rationalised. They may not produce the most realistic results, but your arguments against them are spurious and you have not offered an alternative so far. Calm down, take a bit of time to think about it, and come up with a better solution.

[SirGarnet]

There is however no requirement to specify the direction of a charge when it is declared.

Charge direction only kicks in when you actually move the charge or when the target (or at least one target) of the evades.

Please help clarify the process:

1. Player declares a charge and names targets without indicating direction, but there must be a charge path that hits all named targets where they stand.

2. CMTs for charging/not charging.

3. Possible evaders decide whether or not to evade and take CMT if standing. At this point the evaders don't know the exact direction of the charge, but by guesswork or measuring maximum potential wheels that the chargers could make they can calculate the range of directions in which the charger could still contact.

4. Charge direction is defined so as to contact the target(s) in their current pre-evade positions.

5. Charged FRAGMENTED test/rout.

6. Interceptions, based on declared charge path.

7. Evaders evade back or in direction of charge.

8. Chargers move, which can include one wheel (must not contact less bases than straight etc.) If not intercepted and if all targets evade out of the path, we have that confusing language about "can wheel in an attempt" to catch them which means they can use their one wheel to wheel towards (not away from) the direction the evaders went, even if that is outside the original charge path and even if there is no hope of catching them. They may then interact with fresh targets.

Question: What does the "direction of charge" mean? Evaders may evade in that direction so it needs to be a precisely fixed direction before they make their move. What does "direction of charge" mean in terms of limiting the chargers actual movement before, during or after any wheel, and what are the initial criteria for a valid direction of charge?

Thanks,

Mike

[lawrenceg]

Question: What does the "direction of charge" mean? Evaders may evade in that direction so it needs to be a precisely fixed direction before they make their move. What does "direction of charge" mean in terms of limiting the chargers actual movement before, during or after any wheel, and what are the initial criteria for a valid direction of charge?

Thanks,

Mike

I don't think this is formally defined in the rules. However it is defined, I don't see how it can limit the chargers' actual movement during the charge. Because of the sequence, the direction must apply to the initially planned charge based on the assumption that nothing else moves. If the chargers' movement changes from that initially intended (i.e. they wheel in an attempt to catch evaders), it is too late for this to affect the evade.

I suggest that "the direction the chargers would be facing when they hit the target" is the best definition to use for practical purposes.

[terrys]

Having discussed this with Richard and Simon we're all three (for a change) in agreement that:

To declare a charge you must be able to contact the target if not other BG moves.
i.e. Each charge declaration is taken in isolation.

If, when your BG moves, your intended target is no longer reachable because an earlier charge is blocking your path, you move as far as possible towards the intended target. A BG of shock troops who failed their CMT to not charge will not burst through previously moved chargers.

[lawrenceg]

Having discussed this with Richard and Simon we're all three (for a change) in agreement that:

If, when your BG moves, your intended target is no longer reachable because an earlier charge is blocking your path, you move as far as possible towards the intended target. A BG of shock troops who failed their CMT to not charge will not burst through previously moved chargers.

OOh, that's a rule change. Would they drop to disrupted in this case?

[terrys]

A BG of shock troops who failed their CMT to not charge will not burst through previously moved chargers.

OOh, that's a rule change. Would they drop to disrupted in this case?

You may be right, in which case I 'may' retract that part of the statement.
The rule says that they don't have to test to burst through troops who are already in combat.
I guess that at the time of the test, the friends weren't in combat so it depends on the following:

The rule also says that 'it must burst through the friends' - 'The friends' being the troops in the path of the charge at the time of the test. Since the other BG wasn't in the path of the charge at the time the CMT was failed, then they're not elegible to be'burst through.
Is that logical? - or am I clutching at straws ???????

[SirGarnet]

Question: What does the "direction of charge" mean? Evaders may evade in that direction so it needs to be a precisely fixed direction before they make their move. What does "direction of charge" mean in terms of limiting the chargers actual movement before, during or after any wheel, and what are the initial criteria for a valid direction of charge?

Thanks,

Mike

I don't think this is formally defined in the rules. However it is defined, I don't see how it can limit the chargers' actual movement during the charge. Because of the sequence, the direction must apply to the initially planned charge based on the assumption that nothing else moves. If the chargers' movement changes from that initially intended (i.e. they wheel in an attempt to catch evaders), it is too late for this to affect the evade.

I suggest that "the direction the chargers would be facing when they hit the target" is the best definition to use for practical purposes.

That way the direction they would be facing is at least clear. That would require that they could legally maneuver to get to a position facing in that direction in a charge. It should also then mean that they must move to get into such a position except for the "can wheel" to attempt to contact evaders, which limits the side to which they can wheel. If not, then once the the charger can just indicate a particularly inconvenient direction to try to force evaders to burst through friends, and then go and make his own move as he pleases.

I'm much happier with charge path being defined when the charge is declared or at least before the evade decision is made so the evader knows its options. It is a simple decision so speeds it up too.

How is this interpreted in practice the UK and world championship tournaments?

Mike

[SirGarnet]

The rule says that they don't have to test to burst through troops who are already in combat.
I guess that at the time of the test, the friends weren't in combat so it depends on the following:

The rule also says that 'it must burst through the friends' - 'The friends' being the troops in the path of the charge at the time of the test. Since the other BG wasn't in the path of the charge at the time the CMT was failed, then they're not elegible to be'burst through.
Is that logical? - or am I clutching at straws ???????

The rule does not mention close combat - it mentions "already in melee." I believe it was clarified a couple of months back re Page 57 that "melee" is not restricted to the melee phase but means positioned to fight. So prior chargers in contact with enemy are in "melee."

Mike

[terrys]

The rule does not mention close combat - it mentions "already in melee." I believe it was clarified a couple of months back re Page 57 that "melee" is not restricted to the melee phase but means positioned to fight. So prior chargers in contact with enemy are in "melee."

Yes, but the rule only stops shock troops TESTING to burst through troops already in melee.
In this case, the shock troops have already tested and failed, before the intervening troops move into melee.
However, the rule also states that the shock troops will burst through troops who are in their way at the time of the CMT. It doesn't say that they will burst through other troops who move into their path.

[lawrenceg]

A BG of shock troops who failed their CMT to not charge will not burst through previously moved chargers.

OOh, that's a rule change. Would they drop to disrupted in this case?

You may be right, in which case I 'may' retract that part of the statement.
The rule says that they don't have to test to burst through troops who are already in combat.
I guess that at the time of the test, the friends weren't in combat so it depends on the following:

The rule also says that 'it must burst through the friends' - 'The friends' being the troops in the path of the charge at the time of the test. Since the other BG wasn't in the path of the charge at the time the CMT was failed, then they're not elegible to be'burst through.
Is that logical? - or am I clutching at straws ???????

If all three authors agreed it, then there is no need to be logical or clutch at straws. You just need to issue an erratum and clarify whether they drop to disrupted in this case.

[terrys]

If all three authors agreed it, then there is no need to be logical or clutch at straws. You just need to issue an erratum and clarify whether they drop to disrupted in this case.

The issue isn't whether on not they're disrupted, it's whether they would be burst through by shock troops failing a CMT. If they do then the troops burst through are disrupted, if they don't, then no-one is disrupted.

[lawrenceg]

If all three authors agreed it, then there is no need to be logical or clutch at straws. You just need to issue an erratum and clarify whether they drop to disrupted in this case.

The issue isn't whether on not they're disrupted, it's whether they would be burst through by shock troops failing a CMT. If they do then the troops burst through are disrupted, if they don't, then no-one is disrupted.

OK, so the only time the shock troops are disrupted is if they can't burst through friends that should be burst through because the friends cannot be moved back enough to make room. Thanks for clarifying that.

[rogerg]

I'm pleased that your're agreed. However, it still means players are free to declare a charges knowing that it will not contact because other BG's will block it.

I still think it would be bettter to go with "...to declare a charge it has to be able to contact if no other BG were to move move and also if other BG's charge ".

This is not a rule change. It just enforces the requirement of making a legal contact. I believe this would also reduce the need for further clarifications. The second paragraph about charges not contacting looks like a nice area for dispute.